RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS by Robert W

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS by Robert W RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS by Robert W. Poole, Jr. April 2021 Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists, and opinion leaders. Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer- reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge, and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals and voluntary institutions to flourish. Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organization as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. The views are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its trustees. RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 PART 2 THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES BAN .............................................................................. 3 PART 3 THE TRUCK PARKING SHORTAGE ............................................................................... 5 PART 4 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING AND ALTERNATIVE FUELING .................................. 9 PART 5 COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE REST AREAS? ............................................................... 14 PART 6 OBSTACLES TO INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL SERVICE PLAZAS ............................. 19 6.1 ATTEMPTS TO REPEAL THE BAN .................................................................................. 19 6.2 ASSESSING NATSO’S CASE .............................................................................................. 22 PART 7 REFORM POSSIBILITIES ............................................................................................. 25 PART 8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 28 ABOUT THE AUTHOR .................................................................................................................... 29 Reason Foundation Policy Brief RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS 1 PART 1 INTRODUCTION Motorists and truckers who drive long distances on America’s most important highways— the 49,000 miles of Interstates—experience a startling difference between the 5% of them that were built originally with toll-revenue finance and the other 95% that were built with 90% funding from federal highway user taxes. On the tolled corridors (such as the New York Thruway, the Ohio Turnpike, and the Indiana Toll Road), large commercial service plazas are spaced at intervals along the roadway, offering various combinations of vehicle refueling, food and beverage service (both eat in and take out), miscellaneous minor shopping, and parking for both cars and trucks. But on the fuel-tax-funded Interstates, motorists and truckers can find only “rest areas” which offer restrooms, vending machines, and a modest amount of parking. If they want any commercial services, Interstate users must exit the highway and look for gas stations, restaurants, and other services, which range from being located close to the off-ramp to being several miles away. Longer distances are often involved to reach full-service truck stops, which offer overnight truck parking, restrooms with showers, and restaurant services. A major 2018 study of the future of the Interstate Highway System, authorized by Congress and carried out by an expert committee of the Transportation Research Board, concluded that most of the Interstate system is nearing the end of its useful life and needs to be Reason Foundation Policy Brief RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS 2 reconstructed and modernized for the 21st century.1 While that report focused mostly on pavement and bridge condition, congestion, and potential widening of some corridors, it did not call attention to the inadequate “rest areas,” especially on long stretches of rural Interstates. This policy brief suggests that a 21st-century Interstate system should have state-of-the-art service plazas in addition to new pavement, improved bridges, and redesigned and rebuilt interchanges in many urban areas. Three factors may lead to support for reconsideration of the no-commercial-services rule for Interstate rest areas. One is the large and growing shortage of safe overnight parking for long-distance trucking. A second factor is the trend of state transportation departments to close some of their rest areas, due to budget cuts. And the third is the coming need to charge electric passenger vehicles and trucks and to refuel those powered by non- traditional fuels such as liquified natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen. 1 Norman Augustine (Chair), Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway System: A Foundation for the Future, Future Interstate Study Committee, Transportation Research Board, National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, December 2018. Rethinking Interstate Rest Areas RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS 3 PART 2 THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES BAN The ban on commercial services at Interstate rest areas dates back to the late 1950s and early 1960s when the first long-distance Interstates were being built. In most rural areas, the new Interstate would bypass many smaller towns and cities, whose gas stations and eating establishments depended on long-distance travelers for a significant part of their business (e.g., on historic U.S. Route 66). Lobbying from those interests persuaded Congress to help out by banning toll-road style commercial service plazas, giving local merchants the opportunity to set up shop at or near off-ramps on the new Interstates to recoup lost business. This new law in 1960 amended the 1956 law authorizing federal funding for Interstate construction. It remains in effect today, strongly supported by existing truck stop operators and franchise operators of food and fuel businesses at or near off-ramps. The ban is in Section 111 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. It provides that any construction project on an Interstate highway receiving federal aid “shall contain a clause providing that the State will not add any points of access to, or exit from the project in addition to those [originally] approved by the Secretary [of Transportation] in the plans for such project, without the prior approval of the Secretary.” The clause must also say that “the State will not permit automotive service stations or other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle users to be constructed or located on the rights-of-way of the Interstate System and will not change the boundary of any right-of-way on the Interstate System to Reason Foundation Policy Brief RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS 4 accommodate the construction of, or afford access to, an automotive service station or other commercial establishment.” But Section 111 excludes any commercial establishment that was in existence before January 1, 1960. Note that this language prohibits not only gas stations and eating establishments at rest areas on the Interstate but also any new development such as a service plaza that would have direct access (entry and exit) to the Interstate right-of-way. To be clear on terminology, in this policy brief the term “rest area” means a place on an Interstate highway with no commercial services, such as eating establishments or fuel services. A “service plaza” means a place on an Interstate that offers an array of commercial services, which is currently legal only on toll roads that were not developed with federal funding and had service plazas in existence prior to 1960. The ban on commercial services at Interstate rest areas dates back to the late 1950s and early 1960s when the first long- distance Interstates were being built. In most rural areas, the new Interstate would bypass many smaller towns and cities, whose gas stations and eating establishments depended on long-distance travelers for a significant part of their business…. Rethinking Interstate Rest Areas RETHINKING INTERSTATE REST AREAS 5 PART 3 THE TRUCK PARKING SHORTAGE The current shortage of safe overnight truck parking is widely recognized in the trucking industry as an unintended consequence of a provision in the 2012 MAP-21 legislation (which reauthorized highway user taxes and the entire federal highway and transit program). Included in MAP-21 was a mandate that all over-the-road trucking companies must install electronic logging devices (ELDs) to record their hours of service (HOS) and rest hours by Dec. 18, 2017. To allow a grace period, that requirement began being fully enforced as of April 1, 2018.2 Prior to the ELD mandate, it was widely believed that many truck drivers fudged the entries in their paper log books so they could drive longer hours than federal law allowed. Once ELDs were in place and being enforced, reported violations declined significantly. But with drivers no longer fudging their time on the road, a predictable result was a growing problem of finding safe and legal places to park
Recommended publications
  • Ken Parent Senior Advisor to CEO and Chairman, Pilot Travel Centers LLC
    Ken Parent Senior Advisor to CEO and Chairman, Pilot Travel Centers LLC Pilot Travel Centers LLC PO BOX 10146 (865) 588-7487 p 692 stores 5508 Lonas Dr www.pilottravelcenters.com Knoxville, TN 37939-0146 (865) 297-1334 f ken.parent@pilottravelcenters. com Serving on: • Board of Directors, Vice Chairman, • Executive Committee, Vice • Strategic Communications Strategic Communications Chairman, Strategic Committee Communications Company: Pilot Travel Centers LLC, doing business as Pilot Flying J, is a chain of truck stops in the United States and Canada. The company is based in Knoxville, Tennessee, where Pilot Corporation, the majority owner, is based. The company is owned by Pilot, FJ Management Inc., and CVC Capital Partners. The company operates truck stops under the Pilot Travel Centers and Flying J Travel Plaza brands. Industry Activities/Interests: As chief operating officer, a role he has held since November 2014, Ken Parent oversees store and restaurant operations, including retail pricing, marketing and technology. He leads the direct sales team, supply and distribution, and the branding and customer experience team. In addition, he collaborates with human resources to advance the companys culture, values and communication to more than 23,000 team members. Ken joined Pilot Corporation in 1996 as a region manager and was promoted to West Division director in 1998. In 2001, he was promoted to senior vice president of operations, marketing and human resources, and, in 2013, was named executive vice president. Prior to joining Pilot Flying J, Ken worked for 11 years in field and staff management at Mobil Oil Corporation and worked for several years with PepsiCo.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercialization of Rest Areas in California
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1326 Commercialization of Rest Areas in California EDWARD N. KRESS AND DAVID M. DORNBUSCH The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is study­ The cost of building a new rest area that serves both di­ ing the feasibility of establishing private commercial services in rections of freeway travel to Caltrans' standards is about $5 rest areas. A lease was signed in late 1990 for the first traveler million plus the expense of land, which varies considerably services rest area (TSRA), which provides such commercial ser­ from site to site. A standard full-size rest area, located ad­ vices. Under the agreement, a private partnership will build, op­ erate, and maintain the rest area for 35 years, after which all jacent to the freeway and accessible from an existing inter­ improvements will become the state's property. Cal trans will con­ change, provides parking spaces for 240 vehicles and modern tribute the land and $500,000 in exchange for an operatiug rest comfort stations, fully supported by utilities and site ameni­ area and revenues from the commercial operations, estimated to ties. be at least $9 million over the life of the agreement. TSRAs are In addition, annual maintenance costs are between $75,000 still in an experimental stage, and two main obstacles impede and $125,000, not including the hidden costs of insurance further developments: federal law prohibiting commercial serv­ ices on Interstates and opposition from local business operators (California self-insures) and security (provided by the Cali­ who fear additional competition. However, during development fornia Highway Patrol and local Jaw enforcement agencies).
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Rest Areas and the American Travel Experience
    Balancing Past and Present Safety Rest Areas and the American Travel Experience Joanna Dowling, MSHP National Safety Rest Area Conference 2008 I have been researching rest area history and architecture for the past three years now, and one of the things that I have learned in that time, is that if you are going to study bathroom history you have to have a sense of humor about it, so I am going to attempt to make this discussion as lively as possible. My primary focus has been looking at the developmental history of the rest area program, beginning with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 through the 1970s. And also looking at the architectural forms that were built in these sites; this is based on a background in historic preservation and architectural history. I presented at two conferences in Albuquerque last month, The Society for Commercial Archeology and Preserving the Historic Road, and people were very interested in this topic, which I hope will be encouraging to all of you. Today, I want to talk about the more functional aspect of this story. In keeping with the theme of the conference “More with Less,” the premise of my talk is “balancing past and present.” because I think that there are many mutually beneficial solutions to be found in the combined awareness of history and function. 1 Designed to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing, the rest areas at most locations will include lighted rest-room facilities, a few picnic tables and benches, parking, on-and-off ramps, a water fountain, litter barrels, a telephone booth and a travel information shelf.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapters 2I-2N
    2009 Edition Page 299 CHAPTER 2I. GENERAL SERVICE SIGNS Section 2I.01 Sizes of General Service Signs Standard: 01 Except as provided in Section 2A.11, the sizes of General Service signs that have a standardized design shall be as shown in Table 2I-1. Support: 02 Section 2A.11 contains information regarding the applicability of the various columns in Table 2I-1. Option: 03 Signs larger than those shown in Table 2I-1 may be used (see Section 2A.11). Table 2I-1. General Service Sign and Plaque Sizes (Sheet 1 of 2) Conventional Freeway or Sign or Plaque Sign Designation Section Road Expressway Rest Area XX Miles D5-1 2I.05 66 x 36* 96 x 54* 120 x 60* (F) Rest Area Next Right D5-1a 2I.05 78 x 36* 114 x 48* (E) Rest Area (with arrow) D5-2 2I.05 66 x 36* 96 x 54* 78 x 78* (F) Rest Area Gore D5-2a 2I.05 42 x 48* 66 x 72* (E) Rest Area (with horizontal arrow) D5-5 2I.05 42 x 48* — Next Rest Area XX Miles D5-6 2I.05 60 x 48* 90 x 72* 114 x 102* (F) Rest Area Tourist Info Center XX Miles D5-7 2I.08 90 x 72* 132 x 96* (E) 120 x 102* (F) Rest Area Tourist Info Center (with arrow) D5-8 2I.08 84 x 72* 120 x 96* (E) 144 x 102* (F) Rest Area Tourist Info Center Next Right D5-11 2I.08 90 x 72* 132 x 96* (E) Interstate Oasis D5-12 2I.04 — 156 x 78 Interstate Oasis (plaque) D5-12P 2I.04 — 114 x 48 Brake Check Area XX Miles D5-13 2I.06 84 x 48 126 x 72 Brake Check Area (with arrow) D5-14 2I.06 78 x 60 96 x 72 Chain-Up Area XX Miles D5-15 2I.07 66 x 48 96 x 72 Chain-Up Area (with arrow) D5-16 2I.07 72 x 54 96 x 66 Telephone D9-1 2I.02 24 x 24 30 x 30 Hospital
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 75 Rest Areas Project Development and Environment Study
    Interstate 75 Rest Areas Project Development and Environment Study From the Charlotte/Lee County Line to SR 681 in Sarasota County Charlotte and Sarasota Counties, Florida FPID: 436602-1-22-01 March, 2017 FDOT Evaluates New I-75 Rest Areas Rest Area Design Concept The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District One, is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to identify sites for the placement of one northbound and one southbound rest area facility along Interstate 75. The study limits extend from the Charlotte/Lee County line north to the interchange of SR 681 and I-75 in Sarasota County. The FDOT is evaluating two sites in Public Hearing Scheduled Charlotte County located south of the Airport Road overpass FDOT invites you to a public hearing regarding the to replace the recently closed rest area at the North Jones identification of sites for two new rest areas along Interstate 75 in Loop interchange. Each of the build alternatives shown on Southwest Florida. Your participation and feedback about this the map below will require additional right-of-way adjacent to project are important. FDOT anticipates final site selection in mid- I-75. FDOT does not anticipate residential or business 2017. The hearing will begin with an informal open house at 5 relocations for the build alternatives. As part of this study, p.m., and the formal hearing will begin at 6 p.m. The study team FDOT will consider a “no-build” alternative, which would not will be available throughout the evening to discuss the project include a new rest area in this segment of I-75.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Roadside Rest Area Master Plan
    FINAL TASK 5 REPORT STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS Safety Roadside Rest Area Master Plan Prepared for The California Department of Transportation Contract No: 65A0334 By Dornbusch Associates April 2011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TR0003 (REV. 10/98) 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Division of Research and Innovation, MS-83 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 1227 O Street Sacramento CA 95814 15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES 16. ABSTRACT 17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (of this report) 20. NUMBER OF PAGES 21. PRICE Unclassified Reproduction of completed page authorized Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 I. BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 2 II. OPPORTUNITIES FOR AND CONSTRAINTS ON AMENDING THE SRRA SYSTEM ............. 3 A. OVERVIEW OF NEW PROGRAMS, POLICIES,
    [Show full text]
  • Pilot Travel Center Absolute Nnn Ground Lease | Highway Frontage | Established Location with High Volumes
    NOR PILOT TRAVEL CENTER ABSOLUTE NNN GROUND LEASE | HIGHWAY FRONTAGE | ESTABLISHED LOCATION WITH HIGH VOLUMES NEW BRAUNFELS, TX Contact the team RICK SANNER [email protected] PH: 415.274.2709 CA DRE# 01792433 IN CONJUNCTION WITH TX LICENSED BROKER: Peter Ellis 210.325.7578 [email protected] This information has been secured from sources we believe to be reliable but we make no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the information. Buyer must verify the information and bears all risk for any inaccuracies. 2 Investment Summary PILOT FLYING J 4142 LOOP 337, NEW BRAUNFELS, TX 78132 $4,675,325 3.85% PRICE CAP NOI: $180,000 LEASE TYPE: ABSOLUTE NET GROUND LEASE LEASE TERM: 20 YEARS LEASABLE AREA: 14.67 ACRES BUILDING SIZE: 10,453 SF PUBLIC PARKING: 120 SPACES PRIME PARKING: 18 SPACES YEAR BUILT: 2007 DOMINATE LOCATION WITH HIGH SALES VOLUMES This information has been secured from sources we believe to be reliable but we make no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the information. Buyer must verify the information and bears all risk for any inaccuracies. 3 Investment Highlights THE OFFERING The subject property is strategically located just off of Highway In addition to the location and beneficial lease terms, with over 35, fronting Loop 337, in New Braunfels, TX. This location benefits 750 locations and $20 billion in annual revenue, Pilot Flying J from high traffic counts and excellent highway visibility. Located is North America’s largest operator of travel centers. In addition between San Antonio and Austin, New Braunfels is the second to the strength of Pilot, in October of 2017 it was announced fastest growing city in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
    CASE 0:13-cv-01742-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/03/13 Page 1 of 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA R&R Transportation, Inc., on behalf of ) ) itself and all others similarly situated, ) ) Court File No.: _________________ Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Pilot Corporation; Pilot Travel Centers, ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ) LLC d/b/a/ Pilot Flying J; James A. ) Haslam, III; John Freeman; Brian Mosher; ) Mark Hazelwood; and Mitch Steenrod, ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION Plaintiff R&R Transportation, Inc. (“R&R” or “Plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, complain against Defendants Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, d/b/a Pilot Flying J, and any affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, departments or agents, James A. Haslam, III, John Freeman, Brian Mosher, Mark Hazelwood, and Mitch Steenrod (collectively, “Defendants”), as follows: 1. This action concerns Defendants’ conspiracy to intentionally defraud Plaintiff and the Class out of contractual fuel discounts and rebates over a period of at least eight years in order to boost corporate profits and executive compensation. 2. Defendant Pilot Flying J owns and operates the country’s largest chain of truck stops with hundreds of travel centers nationwide. It is a privately held company with annual revenues exceeding $29 billion, the nation’s number one retailer of diesel CASE 0:13-cv-01742-MJD-LIB Document 1 Filed 07/03/13 Page 2 of 53 fuel, and one of the country’s largest restaurant operators. Pilot Flying J has thousands of trucking and fleet customers, and is reported to be the sixth largest privately held company in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Design for Delivery with Trucks and Drones
    Strategic Design for Delivery with Trucks and Drones James F. Campbell*, Donald C. Sweeney II, Juan Zhang College of Business Administration University of Missouri – St. Louis One University Blvd St. Louis, MO USA Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] April 17, 2017 Supply Chain & Analytics Report SCMA-2017-0201 College of Business Administration University of Missouri-St. Louis St. Louis, MO 63121 * Corresponding author Strategic Design for Delivery with Trucks and Drones Abstract Home delivery by drones as an alternative or complement to traditional delivery by trucks is attracting considerable attention from major retailers and service providers (Amazon, UPS, Google, DHL, Wal- mart, etc.), as well as several startups. While drone delivery may offer considerable economic savings, the fundamental issues of how best to deploy drones for home delivery are not well understood. Our research provides a strategic analysis for the design of hybrid truck-drone delivery systems using continuous approximation modeling techniques to derive general insights. We formulate and optimize models of hybrid truck-drone delivery, where truck-based drones make deliveries simultaneously with trucks, and compare their performance to truck-only delivery. Our results suggest that truck-drone delivery can be very advantageous economically in many settings, especially with multiple drones per truck, but that the benefits depend strongly on the relative operating costs and marginal stop costs. 1. Introduction Home delivery by drones is being promoted and researched by a growing number of firms, including Amazon, UPS, Google DHL and Wal-mart, as a possible alternative or complement to traditional delivery by trucks.
    [Show full text]
  • LNG & High Horsepower Markets
    LNG & High Horsepower Markets AAPA 2013 Facilities Engineering Seminar Vancouver, BC November 2013 cleanenergyfuels.com 1 Agenda About Clean Energy On-Road Trucking with LNG High Horsepower Markets/Ports with Eagle LNG Production Partners cleanenergyfuels.com 2 About Clean Energy (NASDAQ: CLNE) Largest Alternative Transportation Fuel Provider 700+Leading Provider28,000 of+ Natural Gas400+ Fleet As a TransportationNatural Gas Fuel Natural Gas Customers Vehicles Fueling Stations Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 6,000 Public Transit Taxis & Shuttles Fleet Vehicles 1,500 Trucks 5,000 Refuse Hauling Service Vans cleanenergyfuels.com 3 Clean Energy & LNG Owns & operates 2 LNG plants Subsidiaries – IMW – CNG equipment Developing 2 more LNG plants, – NorthStar – LNG equipment potentially 6 more with Eagle LNG – CERF – Renewable natural gas Fleet of over 80 LNG delivery Partners trailers – GE – Pilot Flying J Distribute more LNG for – Eagle LNG transportation than rest of market combined Presence across North America and 26 countries worldwide cleanenergyfuels.com 4 Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Basics Energy density & liquid fueling is ideal for high horsepower applications Pipeline gas cooled to -260F Produced at LNG facility Delivered to customers No contamination issues - all equipment & storage is aboveground cleanenergyfuels.com 5 Heavy Duty Trucks & Engines Now Available Spark-ignited 100% natural gas engines – Cummins-Westport 9 liter (since 2007) – Cummins-Westport 11.9 liter
    [Show full text]
  • North American Commercial Vehicle Show the Fleet Technology Showcase
    September 27-30, 2021 Georgia World Congress Center, Atlanta North American Commercial Vehicle Show The Fleet Technology Showcase The North American Commercial Vehicle (NACV) Show, the premier biennial B2B trucking industry event focusing on the needs of fleet owners, managers and decision makers, is North America’s largest and most comprehensive commercial vehicle trade show for fleets. North America is the world’s largest market for commercial vehicles with over 141 million vehicles in use across the continent. We are committed to serving the needs of this market and continuing to nurture its vital role in global commercial activity. Kyle Behnke, CEO & Owner, United Federal Logistics, Inc. “The NACV Show put all of the major manufacturers in one room and let us compare all of their new technology, apples to apples. That, and the people we met, helped us drive our truck-buying decision in the following year. We ended up buying 13 trucks, which for a small fleet like ours, was huge.” NACV Show 2017 by the numbers 439 370,000 234 6,000 exhibitors sq. ft. of exhibits accredited international journalists unique visitors NACV Show 2017 Attendees*: 93% rated the show as good or great had plans to purchase products or services 82% they saw on display at NACV Show 2017 planned to purchase from a new supplier after 63% the show were able to see all the products and services 89% they wanted to experience 95% indicated they were planning to attend in 2019 *Based on NACV Show 2017 attendee post-show survey. nacvshow.com Why NACV Show 2021? The NACV Show brings together fleets of ALL sizes, including the biggest and best, with a full range of industry products and services.
    [Show full text]
  • What Truck Stop Operators Need to Know About Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) by Chad Johnson, [email protected]
    What Truck Stop Operators Need to Know about Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) By Chad Johnson, [email protected] © December 2012 by Gilbarco Inc. SP-3335C Overview Since January 1, 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required diesel vehicles to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions significantly. Because of the stringent requirement, most trucks have committed to using Selective Catalytic Reduction system (SCR). SCR reduces nitrogen oxide emissions by converting it into harmless nitrogen through the use of a special catalytic converter and a non-explosive, non-toxic, non-flammable, water-based urea solution called Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). As a result of the new EPA regulation, all truck OEMs have been using a form of NOx emission reduction for their fleets since 2010. Two methods have been deployed to meet the stringent requirements: Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) – with SCR having been the most widely used application. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) SCR reduces tailpipe nitrogen oxide emissions by treating the exhaust stream with a spray of DEF, along with a catalyst that converts NOx into nitrogen and water, which are harmless and present in the air. To reduce NOx, a small amount of DEF is injected directly into the exhaust upstream of a catalytic converter. The DEF vaporizes and decomposes to form ammonia (NH3), which in conjunction with the SCR catalyst reacts with NOx to convert the pollutant into nitrogen (N2) and water (H2O). Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) NOx formation is a function of the high combustion temperature in diesel engines. The hotter the combustion temperature, exponentially more NOx is created from oxygen and nitrogen molecules.
    [Show full text]